MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  22 April 1999            
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12395
	                                    AR1999014688

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright 		Chairperson	
	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon		Member	
	Mr. Thomas A. Pagan 		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, correction of his military records to remove a locally imposed bar to reenlistment, and an upgrade of his general discharge (GD), under honorable conditions to a fully honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  He hopes the Board will look favorably upon his application.  He submits an employment resume, performance awards, certificates, and a letter of recommendation from a previous employer in support of his request.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 November 1970.  His military occupational specialty (MOS) was 72B (Communications Center Specialist).
On 15 February 1971, he was promoted to pay grade E-2.  On 22 April 1971,
he was promoted to pay grade E-3, which was the highest pay grade he achieved. 

Between April 1971 and September 1971, nonjudicial punishments (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice were imposed against the applicant on four separate occasions.  On 15 April 1971, NJP was imposed for failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed 
(12 April 1971).  NJP was imposed on 30 July 1971 for a 9 - 16 July 1971 period of being absent without leave (AWOL).  NJP was imposed on 12 August 1971 for a 10 August 1971 period of AWOL.  NJP was imposed on 23 September 1971 for a period of AWOL from 3 - 13 September 1971.  His punishments included reduction from pay grade E-3 to pay grade E-2, forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.  The lost time from 9 - 16 July 1971 and from 3 - 13 September 1971 were later deleted from his record.  The record does not contain an explanation concerning the deletions.

The applicant's record also shows that he had additional periods of AWOL from
3 - 9 August 1971; 22 November through 1 October 1971; and a 1-day period of AWOL on 20 January 1972.  The record does not indicate that he was ever punished for these periods of AWOL.

On 26 January 1972, a locally imposed bar to reenlistment was initiated.  The applicant's commander stated that the basis for the bar to reenlistment, was his unsatisfactory conduct and unsatisfactory efficiency.  There is no evidence that he appealed the local bar to reenlistment. 

On 26 January 1972, the commander officially notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Department of the Army (DAPE-MPP) Message 242110Z, September 1971 and chapter 4, Army Regulation 600-200, for failure to show adequate potential for promotion and advancement.

On 26 January 1972, the applicant acknowledged notification of the commander's intent to separate him.  He declined to make a statement in his own behalf.  On 1 February 1972, the intermediate commander recommended that the separation action be approved.  On 3 April 1972, the separation authority approved the separation recommendation and directed the issuance of a GD. 

On 28 April 1972, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Department of the Army (DAPE-MPP) Message 242110Z, September 1971 and chapter 4, Army Regulation 600-200, for failure to show adequate potential for promotion and advancement.  He had completed 1 year, 5 months and 7 days of active military service and he had 19 days lost time due to being AWOL.

Army Regulation 600-200, chapter 4, and the Department of the Army, (DAPE-MPP) Message 242110Z, September 1971 in effect at the time, set forth the policy and prescribed procedures for the separation of enlisted personnel who were nonprogressive and/or were unsatisfactory performers.  The procedures contained in this chapter were in addition to those personnel management procedures available for commanders in AR 601-280 and AR 635-200.  A general or an honorable discharge was authorized.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations it is concluded:

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  The local commander approved a bar to reenlistment against the applicant due to his poor past duty performance and conduct and when it was determined that he had no further potential for military service.

3.  There is no evidence of record that his rights were not protected during the discharge process.  He had the opportunity to appeal the bar to reenlistment which he did not do.  Further, he authenticated a statement during the discharge process in which he acknowledged that he understood the impact of a GD. 

4.  The documents submitted in support of the applicant's request provided no basis upon which to grant the relief requested. 

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

INW____  EB______  TAP_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-12395/AR1999014688	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990422	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19720428	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.